The police raid of the health event in Kelantan significantly increased concerns about personal safety among LGBTIQ people nationwide 

On 17 July 2025, the Kelantan police, in a media conference, shared that an alleged gay party was raided by the police in June 2025. The raid resulted in the arrests of three people under Section 292 of the Penal Code, which criminalises the sale, distribution, or circulation of obscene materials. 

Justice for Sisters (JFS) conducted a short survey to gather reactions and impacts of the police raid on LGBTIQ and non-LGBTIQ people in Malaysia. 143 people responded, with 120 of them self-identifying as LGBTIQ people. About 31 of them are from Kelantan, with 28 respondents self-identifying as LGBTIQ. 

The survey asked four main questions

Impacts of the Kelantan police raid on the health event on LGBTIQ and non-LGBTIQ people in Malaysia 

The survey identified several key impacts in Kelantan and nationwide. Highest among the impacts are concerns about their own and other LGBTIQ people’s safety (70%). This was followed by fear of attending NGO or government-organised events (61%) and self-censorship or feeling pressured to hide their sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression (SOGIE) (52%). 41% of the respondents reported increased stress on their mental health, while 31% reported harassment from neighbours and others in their communities. 

The findings clearly showed an increase in anti-LGBT sentiments all around the respondents following the incident, which in turn increase their fear over their and other LGBTIQ people’s safety. 

In this context of increasing state-sanctioned discrimination and lack of state protection and social support, LGBTIQ people’s strategy to cope with the discrimination and violence is 

• to migrate within Malaysia or outside of Malaysia,  
• by minimising themselves by hiding their SOGIE or visibility as LGBTIQ people, 
• by minimising their social interactions and time in the public sphere. 

Against this overwhelming backdrop, too, LGBTIQ people are forced to find their own solutions to deal with overwhelming state-sanctioned discrimination. Some also noted that they don’t know what to do in this situation. 

A respondent from Kelantan shared that they are coping with the situation by “avoiding exposure to reduce slander, be careful of your behaviour and wear appropriate clothing, and avoid gathering in crowded places.” (elakkan expose untuk mengurangkan fitnah, jaga perilaku dan mengenakan pakaian yang sesuai serta elak dari berkumpul di tempat ramai)

Likewise, another respondent from Perak noted that they “advise the community in my area to remain vigilant and stay home as much as possible while the issue is hot.” (Saya menasihati komuniti dalam lingkungan saya agar sentiasa peka dan banyakkan berada di rumah sementara isu tengah panas)

One respondent from Kuala Lumpur shared that “Frankly, I am just working hard to save up enough money in case something happens that will hit me directly. I am not sure whether my parents would support me.” 

Concerns over personal safety 

An overwhelming 70% of the 143 respondents noted that they are concerned about their own or LGBTIQ people’s safety. As a result, at least one person of the 28 LGBTIQ respondents in Kelantan moved to their hometown in another state for their personal safety. Two other LGBTIQ people in other states discussed their desire to migrate to LGBTIQ-inclusive countries. 

At least seven respondents from Kelantan noted that they have opted to stay home and minimised their interaction with other LGBTIQ communities due to fear of arbitrary arrest and detention. One of them shared, 

Feeling unsafe to attend NGO or government-organised events, including health-related events

Meanwhile, 61% of respondents reported that they feel unsafe in attending NGO or government-organised events, including health-related events. This could have a broader and severe impact on the trust in the public healthcare system and access to life-saving healthcare services for an already marginalised population. One of the respondents from Kuala Lumpur noted that “I am more careful about visiting the clinic and not talking directly about my gender identity.” (saya lebih berhati-hati untuk berkunjung ke klinik dan tidak bercakap secara langsung mengenai identiti gender saya.)

Research shows that the lack of trust in disclosing personal information can result in misdiagnosis and improper and lower-quality care, further affecting LGBTIQ people’s right to the highest attainable standards of healthcare. 

The Ministry of Health has already identified gay, bisexual, queer (GBQ) and other men who have sex with men (MSM) as a hard-to-reach population.  They are also projected to be significantly impacted by HIV by 2030 based on the ministry’s projection. This also further moves Malaysia away from its commitment to SDG 3.3 to end AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by 2030. Malaysia’s pathway in achieving this is to have Zero new infections – Zero discrimination – Zero AIDS-related deaths by 2030. 

A respondent shared a sense of disillusionment and hopelessness due to the discrimination faced by people living with HIV (PLHIV). 

A respondent from Perak added that “Most of the LGBTQ people in Malaysia will not participate in all kinds of programs in future because they are worried about their status.”  This further highlights concerns about anticipated violations of privacy, including outing of sexual orientation, gender identity (by misgendering and deadnaming a transgender person) and health status, including sexual health and HIV status. 

Another respondent from Kuala Lumpur shared that “I become more quiet about organising any sorts of events, perhaps not even considering attending any events”. This explicitly shows the impact of such arbitrary raids on LGBTIQ people’s freedom of assembly and expression, and in their increased isolation. 

Opinion on the media reporting of the raid and the prosecution of the three people following the raid

By and large, there is an existing trust deficit in the media owing to the sub-standard media practices in relation to LGBTIQ reporting. 

While the respondents acknowledged that the media reported the news based on the media conference, and corrected some facts following reports of the event by NGOs and the Ministry of Health. Overall, the respondents felt that the media coverage of the event was poor due to the following reasons 

• Bias, sensational and clickbait headlines. One respondent elaborated on the biased reporting and headlines, which cause a significant impact on the safety and public perception of LGBTIQ people
  
  No, media outlets are using the phrase gay gathering as their tagline to gather attention for their viewership agenda and disregard the actual impact on the safety and perception toward the LGBTQ community.
  
  
• Lack of fact-checking and due diligence by the media, as the media reported the police’s claims without probing any further or checking with other sources. A respondent shared 
  
  I don’t think any of the media covered it particularly well. It doesn’t seem like journalists are interested in looking deeper or asking questions of the authorities without being prodded by activists.
  
  Two respondents also commented on the lack of a proactive approach by the media in fact-checking the news or asking the police appropriate questions
  
  It wasn’t any of the media houses, but it was the FB posting of LGBTQIA+ activist that I feel covered the incident fairly, which prompted some mainstream media to talk about it. I feel journalists nowadays are unethical; in the rush to publish news, they do not fact-check and end up disseminating misinformation.
  
  Initial reports were all because the police gave them misleading statements. The failure in the media was the use of clickbaity headlines angles, etc. After the NGOs gave the correct account, most media converted that. But in subsequent PC by the Police the media didn’t challenge or ask the appropriate questions. 
  
  One respondent observed the lack of care by the media, especially in their choices of language, in reporting the news. 
  
  Couldn’t pinpoint. None of the other media, whether government-linked media (Berita Harian, Buletin TV3) or independent media (FMT) have used the word “allegedly” in their articles. So, it seems like a bit of lazy journalism, putting out an initial article about this story, without hearing from people directly involved in the event, to validate if the statements given by the police are true or not. I would have liked to see statements from the people involved in the event in their initial articles. Seems like they just regurgitate whatever the police say and publish them. So, it’s a bit of lazy work for me.
  
  
• The fuelling of anti-LGBT panic by the media. Notably, the respondents were critical of the News Straits Times (NST) media coverage of the incident. NST coverage of the incident included a piece featuring the sentiments of the residents where the health event took place. While NST may have intended to provide a thorough coverage of the news, however, this resulted in an increase of moral panic among the residents in the area. Further, no other articles or reports were released to dispel myths about the event and LGBTIQ people or highlight the importance of such health programmes. A respondent noted
  
  No. NST especially went so far as to interview the villagers as if there was a massive sex party going on & caused the villagers to be even more scared. (Tiada.  NST terutamanya sehingga menemubual orang kampung seolah-olah berlaku satu Pesta Seks besar-besaran & menyebabkan orang kampung lebih takut.)

Court reports of the three people prosecuted under Section 292 of the Penal Code 

Many of the survey respondents and LGBTIQ people questioned media practices in connection with the court reports of the three people who faced charges in court. The two main recurring themes were 

• the disclosure of the three people’s names 
• the media’s attempts to take photos of them in court. 

While the media may argue that it is a standard practice or norm for them to publish the names of those facing prosecution in their media reports, it is evident that the media lacks an intersectional and human rights lens in its reporting. Particularly, the media lacks good practices in protecting the privacy of marginalised populations. By naming the three people and publishing their photos and videos, the media not only forcibly disclosed their actual or perceived sexual orientation, and in turn exposed the three people to even higher levels of stigma and discrimination. 

The Guidelines on Safeguarding Privacy in the Media by the Council of Europe notes that the notion of private life is a broad term with no strict definition, covering but not limited to the physical and psychological integrity of a person and multiple aspects of a person’s identity, including gender identification and sexual orientation. Name or elements relating to a person’s right to their image. As a general rule, personal information should not be made public without the consent of the concerned person. While exceptions are made in public interest matters, the disclosure of a person’s sexual orientation does not constitute a public interest matter. It asserts that journalists must exercise special care when reporting on vulnerable groups or groups which have specific needs. 

Further, the guideline makes a distinction between professional journalism and tabloid journalism. Responsible journalism means that journalists exercise their profession by acting in good faith and collecting and disseminating information in line with journalistic ethics. They make sure the reporting is balanced by repeatedly attempting to contact persons concerned for a comment before publication. Tabloid journalism means that personal information (especially photos) is collected in a climate of continual harassment, which can instil a very strong sense of intrusion into private life or even of persecution of the persons concerned. 

The photos and videos of the court reports very clearly show that the three people did not want to be photographed. This was evidenced by the attempts by people surrounding them to protect their privacy by using an umbrella, a towel, and a blazer. 

Perception and trust in the police following the incident 

83% of the respondents noted that their perception and trust in the police has reduced. 

Opinion on the Kelantan state government’s response to the incident

The LGBTIQ respondents in Kelantan, especially, raised concerns about the increasing operations and raids in Kelantan. Some recurring words used to describe the government’s response were 

Several respondents noted that the state’s responses were “political” or “politically motivated” to woo their voters. Many felt disappointed in the state government’s response, which exploited LGBTIQ people as political pawns and left them unprotected. 

The respondents noted that the Deputy Chief Minister’s statement legitimised the raid, although he somewhat backpedalled later. 

Some also said that they expected no less from the Kelantan state government. 

Most of the respondents stated that the government should investigate and verify facts before making public statements to avoid prejudice and stigma against already marginalised populations. 

Some respondents noted that the statements and responses by the state government created hostility towards LGBTIQ people in Kelantan, and could affect the trust in government health services. 

The respondents also expressed disappointment in the state government’s attitude and awareness of life-saving health programmes. They raised concerns about the further isolation of LGBTIQ people in Kelantan and nationwide.